| For obvious reasons, the following diary contains no names. It also contains no specific dates or places. |
A Sheriff's Officer came out and took us up to the sixth floor, where he called a roll and handed each of us a juror card containing an ID number. If we were empanelled on a jury, this number would be the only identification used during the trial. Some people entered requests to be excused from jury duty, and the Sheriff's Officer considered these, but rejected all but two requests. The remainder were to be given to the judge of the case to decide.
We were herded downstairs and into an old court building next door, where we assembled in the courtroom. At this stage, there were 40 potential jurors. We sat and waited for close to an hour while the judge considered the cases of the people who wished to be excused. Eventually, most of them were allowed to go, leaving about 25 of us.
The judge told us this would be a murder trial, with an expected duration of four to six weeks. A court officer read the charges, against two men accused of murder of one victim. Both pleaded not guilty. The Crown Prosecutor then read a list of the witnesses to be called. The judge told the potential jurors that they should come forward if they knew any of the accused, the deceased, or the witnesses.
Then came jury selection. Numbers were drawn at random until 12 jurors were seated in the jury box. Then as each juror was called to be sworn in, the prosecution and defence barristers were allowed to challenge them. Challenged jurors were removed, while unchallenged ones were sworn in. After the first 12 were done, only four remained unchallenged. More random numbers were drawn and the process repeated until 12 jurors were sworn in. I was the second last juror chosen.
The rejected jurors were led out, and the trial began in earnest. The judge immediately called a recess to allow the jurors to introduce themselves to each other. During this, one of the jurors had second thoughts about not going to work for so long, and sent the judge a note. He was then called out of the jury room, leaving 11 of us to conjecture what was happening. Eventually we were called back in to the court and the judge explained that he'd let the other juror be excused, and would continue the trial with 11 jurors.
The Deceased was a 51% silent partner in the Security Company with Accused A, who owned the remaining 49% and ran the business. Deceased had for some time been suspicious of Accused A's accounting, and had asked for a meeting to go over the accounts and possibly make an accusation that he was being ripped off. Accused A had also negotiated a major contract, which had been kept secret from Deceased. Accused B was an employee of the company and a close friend of Accused A, and was seen at the premises with Accused A just before the meeting with Deceased.
Deceased's Girlfriend became worried after the missed dinner appointment and called Accused A's mobile phone to inquire after Deceased. Accused A's paging service took the call, and Accused A returned the call some time later. The returned call was made on Accused B's mobile phone, and picked up by a phone tower in the immediate area where Deceased's body was later found. Accused B soon after made a phone call from his phone, which was picked up by another phone tower in the immediate region where the body was found.
During the police missing person investigation before Deceased's body was found, Accused A had given a statement saying that the meeting with Deceased had been amicable and continued through dinner at a nearby restaurant - past the time when Deceased was supposed to have met his girlfriend for dinner. Police investigation of the Restaurant discovered that employees there did not recall seeing anyone fitting the descriptions of Accused A or Deceased. A credit card receipt indicated that Accused A had purchased a quantity of petrol, drinks, snacks, and two packets of cigarettes at a petrol station near the business premises at a time when Accused A had stated he was at dinner with Deceased. The two brands of cigarettes bought matched those smoked by Accused A and Accused B.
The chain used to weigh down the body was secured by five D-shackles. A receipt found on the Business Premises indicated lengths of chain and D-shackles matching those found on the body were bought by Accused A a few weeks prior to the meeting.
The Security Company staff had received training lectures by a weapons expert, in which the expert had indicated that the best place to shoot someone for a quick death was exactly in the spot where Deceased was shot.
At this point, the judge called a recess to let the jury absorb this information. We were simply staggered by the apparent weight of the case, and wondered how it could possibly be defended. Then we were called in to hear opening remarks by the defence barristers.
A barrister for each of the accused spoke, emphasising repeatedly the entirely circumstantial nature of the evidence, and that the prosecution carried the burden of proving the case beyond reasonable doubt, otherwise the accused must be found not guilty. Some brief rebuttals were made to some of the Crown's statements, to the effect that when the evidence was examined carefully we would see that it led nowhere, and not one shred of it would clearly indicate the guilt of the accused. We were told we must consider all possible alternative explanations for the death of Deceased, and if any of them was even remotely possible, we could not convict the accused.
During another recess, we expressed our amazement that what had formerly sounded so convincing was now apparently so flimsy and that we had better really listen to the evidence before jumping to any conclusions. At this point, we knew just how hard our job was going to be.